Lootbox Backlash
- Thread starter Andy
- Start date
Belgium ain't having none of it.
Belgium says loot boxes are gambling, wants them banned in Europe
"Last week, Belgium's Gaming Commission announced that it had launched an investigation into whether the loot boxes available for purchase in games like Overwatch and Star Wars Battlefront 2 constitute a form of gambling. Today, VTM News reported that the ruling is in, and the answer is yes.
"Geens, according to the report, wants to ban in-game purchases outright (if you don't know exactly what you're purchasing), and not just in Belgium: He said the process will take time, "because we have to go to Europe. We will certainly try to ban it."
http://www.pcgamer.com/belgium-says..._source=twitter&utm_campaign=buffer-pcgamertw
Belgium says loot boxes are gambling, wants them banned in Europe
"Last week, Belgium's Gaming Commission announced that it had launched an investigation into whether the loot boxes available for purchase in games like Overwatch and Star Wars Battlefront 2 constitute a form of gambling. Today, VTM News reported that the ruling is in, and the answer is yes.
"Geens, according to the report, wants to ban in-game purchases outright (if you don't know exactly what you're purchasing), and not just in Belgium: He said the process will take time, "because we have to go to Europe. We will certainly try to ban it."
http://www.pcgamer.com/belgium-says..._source=twitter&utm_campaign=buffer-pcgamertw
This is my home state. Fun story, the woman who is in charge of making exemptions to the law for Gambling/Liquor and Smoking in venues for the VCGLR, is my old housemates mother. Anyway, we were having her over for Christmas drinks years ago, and she started talking about having to inspect sex-on-site bars and restaurants which are exempt from having to allow women in under the equal rights act, and she kept asking us "Can you beleive these places exsist?!"...
About 8 of us sitting there spent most Sundays at one.
About 8 of us sitting there spent most Sundays at one.
Victoria's Gambling Regulator: Loot Boxes 'Constitute Gambling'
It's not just the state of Hawaii that are investigating loot boxes. In email correspondence with a local university student, the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) has revealed that, yes, loot boxes constitute a form of gambling - at least in Victoria.
The correspondence kicked off by way of a student who reached out to the VCGLR, the independent regulator for the gambling and liquor industries in Victoria. They're the body that issues licenses for bartenders, proof of age cards, and generally regulate venues where alcohol and/or gambling will happen.
Video games isn't typically one of those industries. But with all the recent controversy around Battlefront 2, and loot boxes in general this year, the student got in touch and asked: do loot boxes constitute gambling?
Jarrod Wolfe, a strategic analyst in the Victorian regulators' compliance division, replied. And under Victorian law as far as he's concerned, loot boxes are a form of gambling:
My name is Jarrod Wolfe and I am the Strategic Analyst for the Compliance Division at VCGLR. I have received your correspondence in regards to gambling functionality (loot boxes) being incorporated into games.
Your research and suppositions on the matter are correct; what occurs with "loot boxes" does constitute gambling by the definition of the Victorian Legislation. Unfortunately where the complexity arises is in jurisdiction and our powers to investigate.
Legislation has not moved as quick as the technology; at both State and Federal level we are not necessarily equipped to determine the legality of these practices in lieu of the fact the entities responsible are overseas.
The correspondence was forwarded to Kotaku and has been posted in the main Battlefront 2and gaming sub-reddits.
Wolfe went on to say that the VCGLR has been "engaging with interstate and international counterparts" to work on policy changes that would "modernise and inform both federal and state based legislation". They're also particularly concerned with the proliferation of gambling-based mechanics being targeted at minors, which Wolfe said was "not just morally reprehensible, but is also legally questionable".
The real kicker, as Wolfe wrote in a second email, is one of jurisdiction.
Gambling isn’t necessarily “Unauthorised gambling” so there are a lot of variables at play. For perhaps a real world example think of overseas betting agencies. Such as Bet 365 – Australians can and do use this service; yet it is clearly administered and run from the UK.
This isn’t illegal. However, if that company set up “shop” in Victoria or started specifically advertising and offering gambling products to Victorians. Then we could investigate and it could be considered a breach of legislation and we would pursue, overseas or not. One of the downfalls is that using overseas based products, Victorian residents do not have us to investigate any complaints or issues they have.
The VCGLR analyst noted that the regulator could potentially work with other Australian bodies to keep a closer eye on gambling elements in video games.
For instance, the Classification Board could get involved. "If these companies want to include significant elements of gambling in their products then perhaps we should work with 'The Australian Classification Board' to ensure than any product that does that and monetises it gets an immediate R rating," Wolfe proposed.
"I could imagine that this would send ripples through the industry and it would support the objectives of the Gambling Legislation to ensure minors are not encouraged to participate in gambling."
I think it is so odd that a sovereign country has to go and ask the rest of Europe of It's okay that they ban this. I know there's a lot of politics in this, but a country should be able to ban what they want without having to check with Big Brother.
The EU is a complicated mess. Some laws supersede other laws. Some counties have different agreements depending on when they joined. Digital laws though are handled at an EU level so that all member states and the companies within them have to comply. In this case I’d say it’s easier for Belgium to push this at an EU level so they don’t have to take on this legal battle at a regional level.
About time.
I'm surprised nobody has ever looked into it.
Lootboxes is rolling the dice. No different than gambling. And like every jurisdiction, gambling is regulated. And so is anything regarding contests. Disclosures, payouts, prize probability etc... are all fully disclosed some where.
But for lootboxes, it's a wild west of money, software generated outcomes, and I don't think any company even discloses what the probability of winning this or that even is.
Unless you get approval, nobody can just open up a website and ask for money, with one person being drawn and given a grand prize, while everyone else gets zippity do da.
The big factor here is star wars. It made it easy to get into mainstream headlines.
I don't get Jim Sterling's schtick, but his vid was informative. I wish he'd dive deeper into the granular aspects of revenue generated by microtransactions though.
I think people who suggest publishers should increase prices of games to a mere $80 in order make as much money without microtransactions as they could with them are severely underestimating how much people actually spend in microtransactions.
I've read people say that the increasingly high costs of development necessitate either microtransactions (MTs) or a higher retail price. The more likely driving factor for the inclusion of MTs is that it simply brings in a gigantic amount of $$. Why leave money on the table?
Gamers are friendly to the idea of MTs in retail games. People tolerate & even like them in games like Overwatch & FIFA. Even if game prices rose to $100, MTs would still exist & people would still spend $ on MTs. Suggesting higher-priced games would stop MTs just makes no sense.
A higher cost barrier would decrease revenue from MTs. If anything, I'm curious to see which major publisher would be willing to take one of their pillar franchises and turn it into a free-to-play game. Now THAT'S what I call gambling.
That said, what happened to Marvel Heroes is quite shocking. F2P game and it didn't survive. Somehow I doubt a lack of revenue was the cause of its demise though. I hope we'll get the full story someday.
I think people who suggest publishers should increase prices of games to a mere $80 in order make as much money without microtransactions as they could with them are severely underestimating how much people actually spend in microtransactions.
I've read people say that the increasingly high costs of development necessitate either microtransactions (MTs) or a higher retail price. The more likely driving factor for the inclusion of MTs is that it simply brings in a gigantic amount of $$. Why leave money on the table?
Gamers are friendly to the idea of MTs in retail games. People tolerate & even like them in games like Overwatch & FIFA. Even if game prices rose to $100, MTs would still exist & people would still spend $ on MTs. Suggesting higher-priced games would stop MTs just makes no sense.
A higher cost barrier would decrease revenue from MTs. If anything, I'm curious to see which major publisher would be willing to take one of their pillar franchises and turn it into a free-to-play game. Now THAT'S what I call gambling.
That said, what happened to Marvel Heroes is quite shocking. F2P game and it didn't survive. Somehow I doubt a lack of revenue was the cause of its demise though. I hope we'll get the full story someday.
ESRB took a look and decided it wasn't gambling. I think the rationale was that whereas in "real" gambling, you can end up with nothing, here you always end up with something.
Is that a legitimate reason to consider something "not gambling"? I don't know. I suspect other motives are at play, like the ESRB's reluctance to challenge common practice and industry giants.
A lot of FIFA fans have turned.
https://www.polygon.com/2017/11/23/...rganize-black-friday-in-game-purchase-boycott
I don't think it is gambling, but it seems to tug at the same kind of strings in people. They seem to have the same kind of addictive feel.
The question should be whether it is addictive.
It is technically not gambling because you are guaranteed to get something. That’s where the legal arguments will go if it does go that far in the EU.
Oh its addictive.
Danny O'Dwyer did a video on the behavioral science techniques used, I can look around for the skinner box research but I like his presentation. This is mainly about destiny but the overall concepts pertain t o BF2 and many other games that use variations of the same techniques.
Problem with that is, it's really whether it's potentially addictive, since nothing is addictive in and of itself. But then, all sorts of things are "potentially addictive," including playing videogames itself. So you get into the weeds quickly, trying to define terms.
A little self control goes a long way. When the guy plays the game with the ball under the cup, ask yourself, why do I care about the ball?
People want the ball because they don't have it. The minute you get it, it ceases to have any value.
Once you take a step back and stop caring about the worthless pixels inside loot boxes, they lose all power over you.
It prays on the entitlement mentality. Words like "must" and "need". I must have it. I need to have it.
It isn't gambling because the crap in those boxes ultimately has zero value. That's why games avoid in game trading, because then an in-game real world economy starts and then it becomes something very different (see Diablo 3).
Stop asking "how do I get it" and start asking "why do I want it?".
UK gambling commission doesn't find loot boxes as gambling because they can't be cashed out. They still expressed concern over the practice.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/11...s-loot-boxes-arent-gambling-under-british-law
At some point I bet publishers will at least have to report the odds.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/11...s-loot-boxes-arent-gambling-under-british-law
At some point I bet publishers will at least have to report the odds.
The video games industry forms a coalition to fight the lootcrate gambling crisis
As a result of the increasing external pressure for reform and regulation on the games industry, a group of industry leaders and experts has agreed to come together in a more permanent way, forming the National Committee for Games Policy (NCGP). We made this decision in response to the current crisis regarding the expansion of loot crate economies and concerns about unregulated online gambling, but also as an acceptance of a long in coming decision that we knew would eventually become necessary. Games are not represented or understood in the modern political and judicial world, and that needs to change.
Unlike the IGDA, we are not an association of game developers. We are a coalition of high level industry experts and influencers. Membership in the NCGP is by invite only. We will work on the behalf of games industry professionals of all political leanings. In order to do this, the NCGP has appointed a steering committee with significant political experience on both ends of the spectrum. Where video games, politics, and law intersect, you will be sure to find the NCGP.
The second and much more important arm of the NCGP is our establishment of the video game industry's first, and de facto, self regulatory organization. Independent of the think tank is the NCGP SRO. As an SRO, our purpose is to protect consumers from unscrupulous video game companies by investigating and bringing legal action against those companies that have damaged the public consciousness in some way, whether mental or physical. To do this we’ve enlisted the aid of game developer’s employees as well. By establishing the first video game industry whistleblower center, we’re able to help the video game industry fight things such as overtime pay.
As part of our work as an SRO, we will release a quarterly list of companies who we have cited and the reason for citation. While we do hope to help as many people as possible, a complaint doesn’t become a citation without further investigation and action by the NCGP.
https://www.gamasutra.com/view/pres...on_to_fight_the_lootcrate_gambling_crisis.php
As a result of the increasing external pressure for reform and regulation on the games industry, a group of industry leaders and experts has agreed to come together in a more permanent way, forming the National Committee for Games Policy (NCGP). We made this decision in response to the current crisis regarding the expansion of loot crate economies and concerns about unregulated online gambling, but also as an acceptance of a long in coming decision that we knew would eventually become necessary. Games are not represented or understood in the modern political and judicial world, and that needs to change.
Unlike the IGDA, we are not an association of game developers. We are a coalition of high level industry experts and influencers. Membership in the NCGP is by invite only. We will work on the behalf of games industry professionals of all political leanings. In order to do this, the NCGP has appointed a steering committee with significant political experience on both ends of the spectrum. Where video games, politics, and law intersect, you will be sure to find the NCGP.
The second and much more important arm of the NCGP is our establishment of the video game industry's first, and de facto, self regulatory organization. Independent of the think tank is the NCGP SRO. As an SRO, our purpose is to protect consumers from unscrupulous video game companies by investigating and bringing legal action against those companies that have damaged the public consciousness in some way, whether mental or physical. To do this we’ve enlisted the aid of game developer’s employees as well. By establishing the first video game industry whistleblower center, we’re able to help the video game industry fight things such as overtime pay.
As part of our work as an SRO, we will release a quarterly list of companies who we have cited and the reason for citation. While we do hope to help as many people as possible, a complaint doesn’t become a citation without further investigation and action by the NCGP.
https://www.gamasutra.com/view/pres...on_to_fight_the_lootcrate_gambling_crisis.php
So if a $5.00 slot machine drops a half stick of gum when you lose, is it no longer gambling? Can I then install slot machines like this in schools or in states where gambling is illegal?
The line is super muddy and this is an interesting conversation. I think some people have brought up things like magic cards and baseball cards. Would those be considered gambling?
I just dislike loot boxes in general and dont buy them. I think they are very anti-consumer. If a company makes something as dlc that I want, let me buy it. The dev gets my money and I get what I wanted. Win/Win.
Nope. Nothing muddy at all. I’m talking about a technical definition. I didn’t write the definition so I can’t explain it or justify it, I’m just saying what it is.
Also I agree with your examples. Loot boxes are like digital trading cards and trading cards aren’t gambling. But there is one significant difference - physical items like trading cards are carefully audited so that the exact number of each card and what pack the card is in and where it was sold are more or less know. With digital loot boxes the algorithm that lets you win is proprietary software, written by people that don’t want you to win.
Part two seems to fit
gam·ble
[ˈɡambəl]
VERB
gambling (present participle)
play games of chance for money; bet:
"she was fond of gambling on cards and horses"
synonyms: bet · [more]
bet (a sum of money) on a game of chance:
"he was gambling every penny he had on the spin of a wheel"
take risky action in the hope of a desired result:
"the British could only gamble that something would turn up"
synonyms: take a chance · take a risk · stick one's neck out · go out on a limb
But I am guessing that you are referring to some legal definition that I am not aware of. But I do still wonder, if something is no longer gambling if you are guaranteed to get something, could you really do what I mentioned above with a slot machine? Not trying to be facetious. I just wonder where they draw the line.
I do agree that loot boxes in games need to have the odds clear listed.